Why have humans not evolved so that they are all physically attractive?
Just wondering what counters this rather large selection pressure, considering attractiveness is very heritable.
Printable View
Why have humans not evolved so that they are all physically attractive?
Just wondering what counters this rather large selection pressure, considering attractiveness is very heritable.
unattractive people have children, too. there's genetic variation as well.
Why would we desire attractive traits if they didn't have an evolutionary advantage? Attractive people's genomes have a greater chance of being passed on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I think you just answered your own question.
Attraction can be a measure of how viable a person's genes are and therefore how likely they are to pass on beneficial traits. We find attractiveness in a sense of order, this is why symmetrical faces tend to be more attractive. Disorder in genes makes genes less viable and higher risk. Disorder in attractiveness is directly linked to disorder in genes. Order in attrativeness is directly linked to order in genes.
This is only my speculative hypothesis.
You've described the question in more detail, but you haven't answered it. Why have we not evolved to have less disorder, if that's the case?
Because evolution isn't flawless. Its like you're asking "Why aren't we perfect?"
No that doesn't work either, like I said, attractiveness is heritable. An attractive man and an attractive woman will tend to have an attractive child. It's a trait like any other but it is not acted on by natural selection like other traits. Why is beauty different?
How is it not acted on by natural selection?
Attractive people have good genes.
One person finds another attractive.
Their offspring has good genes and is attractive.
Non-Attractive people do not have good genes.
One person finds another repulsive.
No offspring, no bad genes are passed on.
If you're asking "If this is the case, why are their ugly people?" There are many reasons. We as humans are able to consciously oppose natural selection to a degree. Ugly people can choose to mate. As well, we have a massive number of people, making the definition of Attractiveness these days very wide. Finally, again with a massive number of people, due to the fact that evolution is not perfect, 2 Attractive people can have an unattractive child.
Yesss that's the basic mechanism of evolution by natural selection...Quote:
How is it not acted on by natural selection?
Attractive people have good genes.
One person finds another attractive.
Their offspring has good genes and is attractive.
Non-Attractive people do not have good genes.
One person finds another repulsive.
No offspring, no bad genes are passed on.
Well exactly. That was the question.Quote:
If you're asking "If this is the case, why are their ugly people?"
This simply isn't how evolutionary theory works. If there is a selection pressure it should effect a change. It doesn't need to be 'if you have this trait you won't have children and if you do you will'. That's ridiculously oversimplified.Quote:
There are many reasons. We as humans are able to consciously oppose natural selection to a degree. Ugly people can choose to mate. As well, we have a massive number of people, making the definition of Attractiveness these days very wide. Finally, again with a massive number of people, due to the fact that evolution is not perfect, 2 Attractive people can have an unattractive child.
The large population nowadays is pretty much irrelevant considering the timescale of evolution, and anyway, the worldwide population doesn't affect an individual. Attractiveness is actually a very unambiguous trait. Virtually everybody agrees on what is attractive.
I don't know what 'evolution isn't perfect' is supposed to mean really. The frequency of unattractive genes should decrease, simple as.
Physical appearance is the product of more things than just genes. Environment in the womb during development influences it a lot, for example. I remember reading that face symmetries (and this influences attractiveness a lot) is particularly sensitive to exposure to toxins during pregnancy.
Second, people are largely monogamous. That is, ugly people mate with ugly people and usually reproduce at the same rate as attractive people.
Third, attractive people can have ugly children. It's basically the same thing with genetic diseases. They will always be present in the gene pool, even if they kill the individuals (and you can't get more deleterious than that)
Fourth, even if the average attractiveness of the population was increasing due to sexual selection, you wouldn't notice it because you wouldn't find your average individual attractive. You would only be attracted to the above-average attractive individuals.
However, I don't think it changes a lot: on average, 10s mate with 10s and produce children that are 10. 1s mate with 1s and produce children that are 1s. You always end up with similar proportions of (un)attractive people.
Fifth, what we find attractive is largely culturally determined and changes over time.
A) What's attractive can strongly be influenced by culture, and on a timescale far too rapid for evolution.
B) There are other factors at work. An attractive woman might herself be attracted to a plain man due to his intellect, for example. Intellect of course clearly has been attractive throughout the course of human history given it's evolution. I'd speculate that the reason why we're not all amazingly intelligent is because less intelligent people tend to have more children, thus weakening selection pressure.
C) Who says this isn't happening on the grand scale, it's just taking a long time to occur? As an example, we lack a lot of body hair compared to our ape cousins (even if our hair follicles are actually more numerous), something which is generally considered to be more attractive.
D) People are attracted to different things, which overall weakens any selection pressure that may exist. In the Western world people are generally attracted to slim figures but there are those who prefer large people, for instance.
These are my suggestions:
1) Attractive people can have unattractive children
2) People settle
3) Physical appearance isn't the only criteria
4) The standard for what is attractive changes
Though general attraction may come as the result of our genes, what we're
attracted to specifically may be influenced by environmental factors. That way,
all genes are tested so that no potentially good ones on an "ugly" person go
untried, so to speak. It is beneficial to the survival of a species to work this way.
What you are ignoring is the factor of relative attractiveness. People tend to be attracted (and therefore mate with) people who are of a relative attractiveness to themselves. It is unusual for a very attractive person to be matched up with a very unattractive person. In order for attractiveness to be a dominant trait, everyone would have to be seeking out a mate that is more attractive than themselves, which is impossible.
Either people have to match up with someone equally as attractive as themselves, which produces just as many unattractive offspring as attractive ones since the relatively unattractive pairs are still mating, or a more attractive person mates with a less attractive one and their offspring tend to be more average. Either way, you end up with a population that averages out to mediocre no matter how many generations are produced.
This of course only applies to our societal norm of paired mating. If we were in more of a pack social structure in which only the most desirable members mate at all, then you would see a tendency towards more attractiveness.
First and foremost this is as subjective as it gets. The only thing to understand is essentially this. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" No one is asking the most simple and fundamental question that needs to be asked. To the OP, what is considered attractiveness in this discussion? Someone brought up "good genes" being passed on. What are considered "good genes?"
Although I do agree with your point about good genes, since there really is no such thing, there have been studies done showing that beauty is somewhat universal; I remember a particular one in which pictures were shown to infants and their reactions were gauged and judged to be more positive towards the same people. Things that are more symmetrical are generally more pleasing to the eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing
The good genes thing is a good point. The only "good genes" are the ones that persist.
To the other posters, facial attractiveness is not arbitrary, but rather opinions on beauty are largely shared across different sexes, cultures, sexual orientations, ethnic groups, and ages (Langlois & Roggman, 1990; Jones, 1996; Symons, 1979). Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder when judging facial appearance only.
Interestingly, physically attractive parents are 36% more likely to produce a girl as their first child compared to unattractive couples (Kanazawa et al., 2006). And males with feminine faces are more attractive than masculine faces to females; however, when the woman is most fertile, then she prefers masculine over feminine faces. This, of course, alters what secondary characteristics--and in what way--they are considered attractive.
Still, the most fundamental component of attractiveness is a configural one: irrespective of one's 'perspective', people tend to perceive those with low fluctuating asymmetry as most attractive. Belying this asymmetry is not genetic instruction per se, for the same genes code bilaterally symmetric features. Indeed, as someone noted, the cause of (FA) originates externally, in the womb, and then interacts with the gene's expression.
As for a quick comment on the evolution of attractiveness - in reality, beauty is not judged solely in the face, and nor is it wholly physical. If it was, we would see an evolutionary change. Instead, one's beauty extends to hairstyle, clothing style, body mass, and non-physical attributes...such as gait, attitude, dominance, loyalty etc. And, as it is, these assets of beauty are--in fact--in the eye of the beholder.
That is extremely interesting Xaqaria. Do you think it's possible to find where you remember reading about that study? If it's been a while then, it's no big deal but I would really like to see that. That does add a different light to this for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Damn good post I can attest to this, it makes perfect sense. :goodjob2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I did a quick search and was able to find This Article, it seems like its talking about the same study.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing
Interesting you should bring this up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-species.html
http://www.livescience.com/technolog...tic_class.html
And one article of particular interest:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...uman-evolution
Humans are evolving at the fastest rate in history, and scientists do, in fact, predict a great split will occur, beginning as early as the year 3000. Why it has not happened yet? Take a glimpse through history. Many marriages were arranged, society got in the way, people didn't care, etc. etc. Plus, evolution is a long-term process. Humans have been here, what, under 70,000 years or so? As a species, we are still relatively young.Quote:
Comparing the amount of genetic differentiation between humans and our closest relatives, chimpanzees, suggests that the pace of change has accelerated to 10 to 100 times the average long-term rate, the researchers write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.
"The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures."
Has this not happened already? One foot into my local pub supports this divide.
The answer is: it's because beauty is relative. Just like characteristics are selected, taste is selected. What individuals of a population seek changes as the species undergoes natural selection. There's no sense in being satisfied with everyone - an individual must always go after the most beautiful (and by beautiful I mean adapted).
Forgive my skepticism, but i see predicting the future in many regards as a fools errand. We can no more accurately predict the trends that will shape the next thousand years as the best alchemists and philosophers of the past thousand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
Granted, but we can also look at general trends in human history and genetic inheritance to form a general idea of what the future may have in store. Besides, this idea makes sense. Why shouldn't there be a split? People with traits GENERALLY considered as "beautiful" would be more likely to get together (staying within one's league, so to speak). The less attractive, being unlikely to marry a supermodel, would mate with other less attractive people. A schism would be logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soros
If such a thing would occur, this would me much greater than any class split found in the United Kingdom or the caste system of India. In this modern age, i find such a thing hard to fathom;especially considering that the chains of social class and caste have largely been disintegrating over the last 300 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
If i am to take the theory seriously, then there will be a huge divide between the bourgeois so to speak and the proletarians that will stop the populations from mixing together even though the exact opposite has been happening.
I don't see this happening in the foreseeable future.
...and I don't see this dude:
http://www.bobbyworks.com/images/Ugly%20Guy.gif
Getting together with this girl:
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFi...045/701065.jpg
...on a regular or long-term basis. I'm not talking a segregation of financial class, I'm talking about basic laws of attraction. There will always be gold-diggers on both sides of the aisle, but I don't see matches like ^that^ going on for any sort of extended period of time.
I agree with the points about people "playing in their league" and key elements of attractiveness being nonhereditary, but the underlying issue here is fuzzy thinking on the fundamentals of evolution: attractiveness is not a biological trait. There are dozens of traits that influence attractiveness AND are hereditary, thus selectable, but in terms of overall attractiveness, they're not only confounded by non-hereditary factors like nutrition and conditions of gestation, they also confound each other. When you assess or rank individuals' attractiveness, you're taking a rough average of many, many traits, meaning that traits that would be undesirable in one individual may be acceptable or even have a positive interaction with traits in another person.
There's also some evidence that being extremely attractive can lead to less reproduction for females, due to the stresses of being approached by so many males and the impact of stress on fertility, as well as the opportunity cost of devoting so much time to courting.
No duh Mario. I didn't even know down syndrome people lived that long...... weird.
But we are just talking about there being a huge gulf between two segments of humanity,
For this scenario to happen humanity must be effectively split in two separate social groups which don't intermingle. For this to happen they must split into two groups which don't breed with each other for long enough to become a different species or freaken close to one if I'm to take the 7 foot tall muscular guy vs small 4 foot goblin scenario seriously.
I think we are supposed to feel attraction to the woman which have bigger boobs (natural ones) and are more beauty because they have more chances of reproducing a good baby. It is also a limiter of population: if we had sexual attraction all the time, we would probably have an overpopulation.
In the other hand, ugly people have the pressure to develop skills that can give them attraction, like intellect, social skills, vocal, kindness, "motherness" (lol), etc. I'm sure all of you have heard about the fat guy commonly being the coolest :P.
I don't know, but I know why we're not smart. People breed with idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I agree that in general beautiful people stick with beautiful people and ugly stick with ugly. This is especially true for men as it is very rare for a man to date a woman that is less attractive than he is. But it is not uncommon for a woman to date a man who is significantly less attractive than she is. In fact I see this a lot. A man with a good personality that is a 5 out of 10 in the looks department, can get a woman who is a 10 out of 10 if he knows what he is doing. I have seen it happen actually. All I'm saying is that there is a grey area. I don't believe there will ever be a schism. I have read somewhere though that the entire human population as a whole is becoming more physically attractive when compared to past generations. That is all subjective though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
I'll /thread real quick.
because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
There are, however, common characteristics often found to be universally "beautiful." There are exceptions, but for the vast majority of the population, it can be agreed that certain traits are highly desirable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Creation X
http://urbansemiotic.com/2006/07/24/...sal-beautiful/
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology...ekanayake.html
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/...utiful_people/
You'll note that certain cultural differences lead to differing definitions of beauty, but on a general trend, it is found that certain physical features are universally considered to be "beautiful." They signify health and possibly wealth, and are typically signs of a good mate.
As for women dating men in a lower league, that will change with society. There can't possibly be that many gold diggers out there. It's more than likely a question of self-esteem or self-concept. As society changes for the better, so will women's perceptions change.
This is how evolution works. Humans are probably going to become the common ancestor of two different and distinct races (provided we don't all kill each other first).
Because not everybody drinks beer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Really though, most people can't pull off mating with the most attractive people, so they mate with people who are not as attractive, and their genes keep passing and being the majority.
http://www.bobbyworks.com/images/Ugly%20Guy.gif
I have never posted my picture here. How did you find it?
If you're being serious, all I did was google "ugly guy"Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Those assholes at Google!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
I'm going to have to disagree with this statement. The thought process for courtship is much different for men than it is for women. That is why is it hard for men to see how a woman could be with a man who is less physically attractive than she is. I don't believe women only date less physically attractive men because they have money, granted a lot of them do. There are certain buttons that a man can push on a woman that will get her hot no matter what the man looks like. (As long as he is not a total slob, he has to at least try to keep himself clean and presentable.) When a man sees a sexy young woman with a nice rack, he wants to fuck her on the spot. A woman on the other hand, isn't necessarily turned on sexually by an attractive man, at least not in the way a man is. A womans interest will be piqued by an attractive man, but he has far from won her over. It isn't a rare occurance for an "ugly" man to be with a hot girl, even when he is broke. It just means he has all of the other characteristics that a woman looks for in a man. I would also argue that it takes a woman with incredible self-esteem to date a man uglier than her, for reasons other than money. Maybe a female can back me up on this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
This reminds me of a quote from Voltaire, who was quite the womanizer in his day. He also happened to be incredibly ugly.
--"Give me 10 minutes to talk away my ugly face and I'll bed the Queen of France" -Voltaire
wooooooo
this thread needs to take a step back and ask yourself what is considered to be beautiful and attractive, mario's two pictures reveal a lot about what is and what is not attractive
let's compare the two!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
First off the biggest difference is age. We are comparing an older man with a younger woman. The younger woman is in her PRIME. Biologically speaking, this is the time for her to be popping out babies. On the other had, the man is old and passed his prime. There is a reason why older men are popping viagra. Biologically speaking, they have reached an age where they are no longer meant to be passing on their genes, thus their parts stop working.
His hair is thin, loss of youthful color, and is retreating back, exposing his forehead more and more as the years pass. That's not because he's ugly, even the most attractive men in the world are destined to lose their precious hair and grow larger disproportionate foreheads (sorry!)
Her hair on the other hand is thick luscious and full, a sign of her youth. The point is, this man who we've deemed as ugly at one point in his life was also young with youthful hair
Two. HEALTH. The older man is overweight. The younger woman on the other hand works out. She's healthy!! Her skin appears healthy at least (very important). He's not healthy!! Healthy will always equal attractiveness. ALWAYS
Now imagine if the old man lost weight and worked out. His entire face would look different! For one, he'd have a neck, a well defined angular chin. And his face, which is weighted down with fat, wouldn't be half as droopy. Even his ears wouldn't be thinner!!! Obeise people have fat ears.
Third, his glasses, they're ridiculous!! That's fashion.
Anyways, point being - this was an unfair comparison. If you take the young woman - give her 30 years, saggy skin, and a triple chin - you wouldn't find her as attractive anymore. Vice versa. Take a good 30 years away from man, have him work out, get some sunlight, and give him a sensible style - and he would look a lot more attractive than he does there! As hard as that is too imagine, you only have to look at young pictures of your grandparents to see what a difference age and health make.
What we consider attractive has to do with these two factors more than anything else
1. Health. Healthy means more able to produce children. The more able to produce children, the sexier or more attractive person is. This is so hard-wired into us, there's no point in trying to go against is. Healthy is beautiful! And your skin is one of the biggest factors. Your skin alone can reveal your age. Taking good care of your skin, and you'll always look years younger than your age!
2. Emotional well being. If an individual is confident and loves his or herself - other people think they are attractive too!! This is absolutely true! A lot of who you consider to be 'ugly' are people who don't have confidence.
Why does this happen? It happens because our bodies are always communicating our emotional well being. And unconsciously we are broadcasting to everyone else whether or not we think we are beautiful. And unconsciously, everyone else is picking up this message and reacting to it. Strangers, not knowing this persons inner beauty, would more than likely agree with their "I am ugly" body language.
The point is....THERE ARE NO ugly people marrying ugly people and having ugly children. Understand that most of what we consider ugly is really just unhealthy. Now we do have UNHEALTHY PEOPLE marrying UNHEALTHY PEOPLE and having UNHEALTHY OBIESE KIDS. We've got that! But that doesn't mean they aren't capable of being more attractive!!! Also, bad teeth. Yes bad teeth are unattractive. But money fixes that. Because money fixes bad teeth, bad or good teeth say more about your income status level than anything else. Bad and good teeth become like fashion.
The majority of humanity, over 90% of us, were born with perfectly healthy genes. This means the majority of humanity is perfectly capable of being healthy. And who ever is healthy, is attractive.
All other ideas of ugliness, such as the size of someones nose, or the shape of someones face, or how close or far someones eyes are - these are all ideas given to you by culture. Or, simply because at younger age you were never exposed to various ethnicities to get a wider appreciation of the diversity of the human face. The european standard has been held to be the most beautiful, and still pervades our ideas of beauty. For one, I could never be a model because I don't even measure up to european height!
There is no biological evidence (that I know of) that says certain ethnic faces are hard wired in our brains to be more attractive than another faces. This would be counterproductive to our evolution as such a hard wiring would only lead to inbreeding. As the face that would be hard wired to be the most beautiful, would be the face of your own genetic make up - your family tree!
Maybe to a certain extent we find the faces of our own ethnicity more attractive, but I believe this is for cultural reasons and racism more so than biological ones.
As inbreeding is counterproductive to human evolution, it makes more sense that health - including a healthy mind - is the measure of attractiveness, and not the face of your family. The truth is, diversity makes for healthier genes. Understanding that diversity is healthy for our genes, it would seem more likely that we could consider a face DIFFERENT THAN OURS more attractive!!! As that would keep our genes healthy! Get it?
boob size has absolutely nothing to do with producing a healthy baby - however hip size doesQuote:
Originally Posted by Awakening
It is practically universal that proportionally larger hips are more attractive. And there is a biological and evolutionary reason why. If a womans hips are too small, she can actually die in childbirth. Larger female hips are universally sexier across all cultures, because they were necessary (before the advent of modern science) for the survival of man. LITERALLY!
What about big boobs?
Oh big boobs are attractive, no doubt!! Very sexy!! But are they more attractive than other boob sizes? The answer is no. Biologically speaking, boob size conveys a lot about the PERCEIVED age of the women
Big boobs convey MATURITY. And maturity is sexy, because it literally means this person is old enough to be having sex. Or old enough to be a mom.
Now...what about smaller boobies? What about tinier than apple boobies? Do men find them attractive..................YES THEY DO! Men are wired to like small boobs too! Some men might be confused why they can be attracted to more petite women, when society says bigger is better.....But there is a very simple evolutionary reason why men can be attracted to smaller boobs
Smaller boobs convey YOUTH.
bigger boobs convey maturity, motherly, sexuality and even female power (godess)
smaller boobs convey youth, innocence, virginity and vulnerability
How important is the image of youth in boobs in comparison to maturity? GRAVITY IS REAL FOLKS! The bigger the boob the more it naturally SAGS. Because of this, sagginess directly equates to older age. Yes, tiny boobs can sag. But they tend to take much longer to sag. It's because youth is so sexy that women started wearing bras. You can thank *or curse in my case* the image of the smaller perky boob for the creation of the bra
Again, there is no evolutionary advantage to larger boobs over smaller boobs. Both are healthy enough to bear milk. Both convey in their own right desirable qualities. One of Youth, one of Maturity.
Because a healthy woman has body fat, boobs with no fat are usually not attractive. These are your flat pancakes on sickly top models, and muscular zero fat boobs. Theres nothing wrong with a women who's got muscles, but she needs some fat too to be healthy.
Giant boobs are unattractive, but if she have nice looking one sure it takes a big role in my attraction. Some women with small boobies compensate in hips like you said, along with a nice body shape and pretty face.
Also, I don't find models more attractive than women in the middle ground.
I think it's quite obvious that a key reason must also be that
natural selection the way Darwin observed it is not going to
work on human society. We don't let things run free, it's not
'natural' selection.
We are not in an everyday struggle for survival, not in the
sense of the animal world. We don't let the "weaker links"
die of, we "let them continue to reproduce." Considerably
weaker genes can be compensated, physical fitness alone
isn't much of a factor, etc. Even though there is still an
adaption to our surroundings, the favored treats are
changing faster then we ever could and we live in a
world, in which the surrounding is increasingly adapting
to our wishes. There is less need to mutate and reproduce
any genes.
It's like,.. the apple that's too high for us to reach, we'll get with
a tower crane. And there is more, if you think about it.
Here's the catch. Being "attractive" is determined by having numerous characteristics of an attractive person, which means multiple genes are involved, thus lessening the chance that a child, even one of two attractive parents, will be attractive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Just my theory.
Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but the assertion that we're 'not evolving anymore' is not just false, but backwards: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...mans-evolving/Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
Since the advent of agricultural civilization, positive selection in our genome has increased dramatically. Not only are we not 'outside of nature,' but apparently our hives and warrens are more demanding than the jungles and savannas.
I didn't mean we're not evolving. But we are interfering, aren't we?
I don't think you can just easily project Darwin's natural selection
onto the human species anymore. And the article doesn't suggest
not to take human interference into consideration.
That is not to say that we, our enviroment, our food, everything isn't
constantly changing, even more rapidly, I agree with this... or I knew this.
And we would obviously have to adapt to it, all the more quicky since
our surroundings change increasingly quickly.
But you're right, I somewhat did make the assertion that there is no more
need to, so thank you for the article. I don't think my points were backwards,
but should be interpreted differently and less one-sided than I did.
Quick quote from the article:
Quote:
"Some of the mutations let us do better. We can eat simple carbohydrates, which hunter-gatherers never did. But we may also be accumulating damaging stuff," said Harpending.
He wondered whether social changes might not cultivate unfortunate tendencies.
"Evolution is a double-edged sword," he said. "What evolution cares about is that I have more offspring. If you can do it by charming and manipulating, and I’m a hardworking farmer that’s going to feed the kids ten years down the road, then you’re going to win. Hit-and-run, irresponsible males are reproducing more. That isn’t good for anyone except those males, but that’s evolution."
We are not interfering and cannot, because we're not outside of nature. If we institute eugenics, splice goats with platypuses and overwhelmingly fuck morons, it's all happening within the context of natural selection. You cannot project a simplistic model of natural selection on the human species, which I agree is where the OP fails, but that doesn't set us apart from any other species. "Survival of the fittest" sums up the principle, but there's no telling how fitness will be tested three, five or fifty generations down the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
That's the key point I wanted to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Other than that, thanks for clearing things up. I'll read up on it.
Because of Beer.
Men are more attracted to physical beauty because it's an indicator of good health.
Women are more attracted to social status because it shows the man is a good leader, and will increase her survival or procreation chances. How many times have you seen a stunning woman with an average guy and just immediately assumed he's a) rich, b) well hung or c) drives a nice car?
So to answer your question: physical beauty is not the only source of selective pressure for the attractiveness (or lack thereof) present in the human race.